One position vis-a-vis ProfessionalLicensingOfProgrammers.
-----

This is as of 2004 my position. I believe there is value in principle in professional licensing (at least there's value for me, and as far as I can tell for some customers, other categories of programmers and customers may be negatively impacted), that discussing ProfessionalLicensingOfProgrammers is a useful discussion to have, but the current conditions make it altogether premature to consider ProfessionalLicensingOfProgrammers in the immediate future (five years would be a safe bet before we can consider anything concrete).  

We should focus on the discussion of the feasability and utility in principle of software engineering licensing, also on identifying the criteria to serve as determination as to when a more concrete discussion can be useful. 

Although I believe that this position is held by a large majority of people who matter in software engineering, one would still need to worry about this subject. There are indications that we have come close to being strongly pressured into premature licensing. If it wasn't for a few enlightened minds able to see through the facades and political interests and take a strong stand vis-a-vis TheEmperorNewClothes (oops, I meant SoftwareEngineeringBodyOfKnowledge) which led to the withdrawal of ACM from the process, we could have had a terrible political clout behind what should be seen as a premature standardization, and from there to US states or country mandating licensing requirements based on a very shallow body of knowledge. I could see myself digesting the body of knowledge on the bureaucracy that some people confuse for software engineering. --CostinCozianu

''I agree. I also think its enormously important to address the question of what '''agent''' actually DOES any contemplated professional licensing. Is it a governmental body? A trade organization? A company? God only knows what would result if the various "certification" programs of Ibm, Microsoft, Oracle, and so on were codified into law.''

Yeah, I'll have to second the support for Costin's position here (although I'm usually against Wiki me-toos). However I remember hearing about the SWEBOK's dark history a long time ago. I read the wiki page and the /. article, but I can't remember what it was about it that made it so dangerous - it was something beyond it just being "premature". I'm sure it relates to this discussion - does anyone remember or can explain?  -- LayneThomas
----

According to ACM's official statement in this regard (I don't think it is available from a free URL):

* "After reviewing the reports of these two task forces, there was growing concern by ACM council that supporting the request of the Texas Professional Engineer Licensing Board was becoming more the primary focus of SWECC's efforts."

So there was a close proximity to the dangerous point of forced premature standardization.

Excellent URL (free for access) http://www.acm.org/serving/se_policy/report.html describing the ACM's concerns.

''Great URL! I found the "Reasons advanced for it being flawed" most informative''
-------
CategoryProfessionalism